Recap of Last Shiur – אין שליחות לדבר עבירה

We discussed various cases where ראובן is conned into stealing for שמעון. Are there grounds for holding שמעון responsible? Do we say אין שליח לדבר עבירה when the שליח is unaware that he is being sent to do an עבירה?

We discussed the מחלוקת between רש”י and תוספות: who both hold that in such a case the משלח/ con-artist is חייב and the שליח/ patsy is פטור – and the נימוקי יוסף who holds that even בשוגג we still say אין שליח לדבר עבירה.

We brought various proofs to both sides –

We noted that the סברא originally given as proof that אין שליח לדבר עבירה is דברי הרב דברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים? (That one should listen to the Teacher over the student) would seem to only make sense if the שליח was aware that he was being asked to violate the will of Hashem.

We noted that the גמרא’s application of the concept of אין שליח לדבר עבירה to a חצר, as well as its application in the case of יואב killing אוריה החתי and דוד המלך being blamed (even though יואב wasn’t aware of the scandalous circumstances under which his orders were given) seem to suggest that אין שליח לדבר עבירה applies even if the שליח is unaware of the עבירה.

We noted that the ים של שלמה sides with רש”י and says that יואב should have been held responsible because he should’ve noticed something was fishy since he was being asked to kill אוריה without “due process”.

We cited the ש”ך who sides with the נימוקי יוסף and explains that דברי הרב דברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים is only the initial reasoning for אין שליח לדבר עבירה but is later replaced by a מיעוט of שני כתובים הבאים כאחד.

We noted a מחלוקת if אין שליח לדבר עבירה just means that the שליח is liable- or actually is מבטל the שליחות – If someone sends a שליח to be מקדש חייבי לאוין for him – is the קידושין חל? (See תוספות בב”מ דף י (ב

We noted that the נודע היהודה אה”ע סימן ע”ה applies אין שליח לדבר עבירה in a case where the עבירה was transgressing חרם דרבינו גרשום. He claims that if a forced גט given by a שליח – the אשה is not divorced at all since the שליחות is בטל .

We noted that the חזון איש applied this reasoning to assert that the sale of the היתר מכירה is invalid since the farmers are making the רבנות agents to sell their land to Gentiles – which is an עבירה . (The איסור to sell land in א”י under the circumstances is disputed by the רבנות etc) .

רב צבי פסח פרנק argues that since the רבנות thinks they are allowed to sell the land – they are at worst a שליח לדבר עבירה בשוגג which according to רש”י and תוספות works. Only the נימוקי יוסף and the ש”ך would hold that the שליחות is בטל.

We noted that perhaps even רש”י and תוספות would invalidated this form of שליחות since the ים של שלמה defends their opinion by saying that יואב should’ve suspected that something was wrong – and that this is enough to say דברי הרב דברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים. Likewise, since the רבנות is aware that there is a strong possibility of an איסור we can still say דברי הרב דברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים. וצ”ע.